Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses the opportunities ahead for conservatism.
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his Real Clear Politics article "Tradition--the Beating Heart of a Democracy."
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses the Supreme Court nominees, conservatism, and President Trump.
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his Mosaic Magazine article "A Salutary Thesis Overestimates the Bible, and Underestimates Modern Thought."
Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz discusses his Real Clear Politics article "A Poor Guide for Trump's High Court Choices."
Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation by Hoover fellow Peter Berkowitz
Hoover Institution Press released Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation, by Peter Berkowitz. Berkowitz contends that constitutional conservatism encompasses a distinguished tradition of defending liberty that stretches from the great eighteenth century British statesman Edmund Burke through the authoritative exposition of the Constitution in The Federalist to the high points of post-World War II American conservatism.
A well-designed constitution protects individual freedoms by preventing the abuse of power by the government. Each branch of government acts to check and balance the other branches of government. The real protection of our freedoms is the prevention of abuses of power through the wise structure of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses his new book, Constitutional Conservatism. The book deepens Frank Meyer’s conservative fusionist project by adding an Aristotelian and Burkean challenge to both Libertarians and conservatives in America.
Bush’s refusal to pardon the falsely accused aide looks even worse now.
Human Rights attorney Scott Horton debated Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz on human rights and the rules of warfare in a debate organized by the Pomona Student Union on Mar. 4 at 7 p.m. in Edmunds Ballroom. . . .
Contrasting positions on American exceptionalism go to the heart of what distinguishes the 2016 Republican presidential field from its Democratic counterpart.
Lessons from the Supreme Court, the Bush administration, and Hillary Clinton.
Due process protections for the accused in campus cases alleging sexual assault have been under attack for decades.
Raise the banner of individual liberty and govern under it.
The impeachment proceedings against President Trump has now reached the Senate and to help our viewers navigate the legal and political issues surrounding it, Peter Robinson sits down with the Hoover Institution’s Visiting Fellow John Yoo and Senior Fellow Richard Epstein, two of the foremost legal scholars in the country.
In his efforts to refute Charles Cooke’s recent exposé of Jennifer Rubin, I was surprised to see David Frum, in passing, attack my Hoover colleague, legal scholar Peter Berkowitz (a “Sean Hannity–style character assassination of James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller”), for suggesting, in a prescient October WSJ opinion column, that the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion may well be ethically compromised (in its zeal to go after those not accused of collusion)—in even greater fashion than was the Comey investigation of Hillary Clinton (in its absence of zeal to indict for clear violations of U.S. intelligence law).
Not long ago, same-sex marriage was a cause advanced by a handful of activists. Now it’s the law of the land. How did that happen?
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision upholding the Obama administration’s interpretation of a critical provision of the Affordable Care Act was the rare judicial action that helped both Democrats and Republicans, at least in the short run.